The 2012 Budget Thread

[Thedelldays]

If you're not working, then the only people you would employ would be people to provide a personal service.

 

The only tax you'd need to pay would be the indirect taxes we all get to pay, and they would pay this at the same rate as everyone else. Well, theoretically - at least. As we've seen before, there are plenty of dodges available to those at the top.

 

It's one of the reasons why I like the idea of tax on all income. Doesn't matter if you work or not, then. As soon as non-working playboys spend their money somewhere else, part of that goes to the Government (provided of course, it is spent internally).

 

 

soooooo

 

 

if you won £2m on the lottery, would your morals see fit to give 50% of it to the government...?

 

???

[Saintandy666]

of course it is.....

 

 

if you won £2m on the lottery, would your morals see fit to give 50% of it to the government...?

 

If that was the law. If not, I'd probably give a substantial amount to charity. I don't need £2m.

[Thedelldays]

If that was the law. If not, I'd probably give a substantial amount to charity. I don't need £2m.

why don't you give it to the government......it will get used to pay for someone free laptop anyway..

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wouldn't cry too much over this "Granny Tax" either.

 

Paul Johnson head of the IFS says that "poor pensioners will not be affected", and it is "a relatively modest tax increase on a group hitherto well sheltered from tax and benefit changes."

 

This is a group of people that saw massive increases in their property values, final salary pensions and massive surpluss' from their endowments. I'm sure they could afford a £90 a year tax rise, perhaps some of them could even start paying bus fares.

[trousers]

I wouldn't cry too much over this "Granny Tax" either.

 

Paul Johnson head of the IFS says that "poor pensioners will not be affected", and it is "a relatively modest tax increase on a group hitherto well sheltered from tax and benefit changes."

 

This is a group of people that saw massive increases in their property values, final salary pensions and massive surpluss' from their endowments. I'm sure they could afford a £90 a year tax rise, perhaps some of them could even start paying bus fares.

 

Yeah, but rationale like that doesn't sell newspapers does it?

[trousers]

What I've never quite understood is why some people think politicians and civil servants are better at spending people's money than the people themselves.

[Saintandy666]

What I've never quite understood is why some people think politicians and civil servants are better at spending people's money than the people themselves.

 

So we should have anarchy? (In the ideological sense, not the 'chaos' meaning some people use it for).

[trousers]

So we should have anarchy? (In the ideological sense, not the 'chaos' meaning some people use it for).

 

No. Of course governments need to take money from citizens to finance the running of the country. I'm simply trying to understand why some people think its best to give said government as much money as possible. The more money governments collect the worse they seem to be at spending it wisely.

[pap]

I wouldn't cry too much over this "Granny Tax" either.

 

Paul Johnson head of the IFS says that "poor pensioners will not be affected", and it is "a relatively modest tax increase on a group hitherto well sheltered from tax and benefit changes."

 

This is a group of people that saw massive increases in their property values, final salary pensions and massive surpluss' from their endowments. I'm sure they could afford a £90 a year tax rise, perhaps some of them could even start paying bus fares.

 

So it's basically the Tory voting pensioners that have been stuffed? Bonus.

[ecuk268]

So it's basically the Tory voting pensioners that have been stuffed? Bonus.

 

Or you could say that it's people who have been prudent and put a bit by all their lives instead of relying on the state when they retire.

[Bearsy]

Does anything in the budget affect bears???

[iansums]

Does anything in the budget affect bears???

 

Yeah, the tax on sore bumhole cream has gone up.

[trousers]

So it's basically the Tory voting pensioners that have been stuffed? Bonus.

 

"Stuffed"? Remind me how much your average well off 61 year old stands to 'lose' per annum exactly?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Or you could say that it's people who have been prudent and put a bit by all their lives instead of relying on the state when they retire.

 

Wow, I hardly think £83 per year is going to dent their retirement plans too much.

 

Most of their "earnt money" will be equity as their homes shot up in value, and their endowments gave them a windfall. Some of them got rich, not on the back of their hard work, but of buying a house at the right time.Coupled with their final salary pensions, it is a generation that is richer than the one it followed and certainly richer than the ones that will follow. The bastards also had the best music, surely that's worth £83 alone.

 

Why should someone who has benefitted from all the booms and all the above, benefit from better tax arrangements than a working man of 35 with 2 kids? These 65 year olds are not the 65 year olds from my youth. They are not old Granny's burning their furniture to stay warm, and rocking in their chairs waiting for the end.

[Bearsy]

Yeah, the tax on sore bumhole cream has gone up.

 

Just as I feared, I knew they'd shut that loophole sooner or later.

[pap]

Wow, I hardly think £83 per year is going to dent their retirement plans too much.

 

Most of their "earnt money" will be equity as their homes shot up in value, and their endowments gave them a windfall. Some of them got rich, not on the back of their hard work, but of buying a house at the right time.Coupled with their final salary pensions, it is a generation that is richer than the one it followed and certainly richer than the ones that will follow. The bastards also had the best music, surely that's worth £83 alone.

 

Why should someone who has benefitted from all the booms and all the above, benefit from better tax arrangements than a working man of 35 with 2 kids? These 65 year olds are not the 65 year olds from my youth. They are not old Granny's burning their furniture to stay warm, and rocking in their chairs waiting for the end.

 

Perception is everything, and you're right - it's not a lot of money, many of these pensioners will realise that. Is it too much to hope that some, particularly the right wingers that don't think too much, will get it all out of proportion and vote UKIP or something?

[pap]

Interesting piece from the Telegraph. The IFS think that the budget is based on optimistic assumptions.

 

Lot of truth in that probably. Osborne reckons that people who are getting paid through limited companies because they wanted to avoid the 50% tax rate are suddenly going to go through PAYE because it's now 45%.

 

There are a couple of problems with that approach, naturally. Firstly, anyone working through a limited company pays a lot less than 45% tax. Secondly, if you are in that situation, it's a hassle. You've got to go through all the bother of closing the company down (or paying to keep it going in case the permanent work doesn't pan out), plus there is a massive assumption that a permanent job exists in the first place.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Interesting piece from the Telegraph. The IFS think that the budget is based on optimistic assumptions.

 

Lot of truth in that probably. Osborne reckons that people who are getting paid through limited companies because they wanted to avoid the 50% tax rate are suddenly going to go through PAYE because it's now 45%.

 

There are a couple of problems with that approach, naturally. Firstly, anyone working through a limited company pays a lot less than 45% tax. Secondly, if you are in that situation, it's a hassle. You've got to go through all the bother of closing the company down (or paying to keep it going in case the permanent work doesn't pan out), plus there is a massive assumption that a permanent job exists in the first place.

 

Cable said that the 50% rate was "largely symbolic" and as Dune said earlier was mainly used by Brown/Darling to box the Torys into a corner.

 

The dropping of the rate to 45% is the Torys doing exactly the same thing. It is symbolic and designed to nod towards lower taxes. Labour for all their protests will not go into an election promising to raise income tax. Even for the rich, tax rises are electrol suicide. Osborne has been quite clever in delaying it for a year. Some people will defer wages or bonus to pay at 45%, and this will boost the take next year and reduce it this year. He can then come out and show figures which will show 45% brought more in than 50%. I fully expect it to be reduced back to 40% within 2 years.

 

The whole tax arguement is looking at things from the wrong way round in my opinion. The rates for everyone would be a lot lower if Govt's stopped wasting our money.Everyday in our lives we look for value for money, yet we hand money over to the state and it wastes it over and over again. We seem to have political classes that look at tax from the point of view of "how much can we get away with taking off people, and still get elected". The rule of thumb should be, "what's the minimum we need to fund the things a state needs to do?".

[pap]

Cable said that the 50% rate was "largely symbolic" and as Dune said earlier was mainly used by Brown/Darling to box the Torys into a corner.

 

The dropping of the rate to 45% is the Torys doing exactly the same thing. It is symbolic and designed to nod towards lower taxes. Labour for all their protests will not go into an election promising to raise income tax. Even for the rich, tax rises are electrol suicide. Osborne has been quite clever in delaying it for a year. Some people will defer wages or bonus to pay at 45%, and this will boost the take next year and reduce it this year. He can then come out and show figures which will show 45% brought more in than 50%. I fully expect it to be reduced back to 40% within 2 years.

 

The whole tax arguement is looking at things from the wrong way round in my opinion. The rates for everyone would be a lot lower if Govt's stopped wasting our money.Everyday in our lives we look for value for money, yet we hand money over to the state and it wastes it over and over again. We seem to have political classes that look at tax from the point of view of "how much can we get away with taking off people, and still get elected". The rule of thumb should be, "what's the minimum we need to fund the things a state needs to do?".

 

That's the problem though, isn't it? People have different ideas about how big the state should be. In many senses, it's out of our hands. Our membership of the EU means there's a lot of the state we can't get rid of. If we're serious about weaving EU directives into our legislation, then it follows that there will have to be some organ of state to implement and enforce them.

 

The real problem is that we've allowed the most simple things in life to become inordinately complex. Stuff like where you get to live or what you're having for dinner. Our ancestors would have hunted, fished or farmed the land. These days, the EU will pay you money not to farm or fish. Consider all the stuff your family go through a week, then consider the myriad places and things that needed to happen for you to get them. Now I'm not saying that we should return to some idyllic existence of hunter-gathering, but we're sitting on so many resources that are just going to waste - while the cash we do have is needlessly ploughed through system after system - almost all of it unnecessary.

[John B]

To be honest i feel the biggest problem facing this country is the benefit system and people who feel they dont need to work.

 

Why dont we have a massive overhaul of the whole system? I wish someone would step up and have the guts to do it!

 

Dont allow people to live of benefits, make them available for a limited time or just to pay to live and not give enough to but itesm such as cigs or booze?

 

To be honest the whole system is supposed to be there as a fall back if you need it and not a way of life. Its time to get tough on these people who feel they dont need to work!?

 

I think you will be surprised to learn that most benefit is paid to the elderly children the sick and to working families to cover Tax Credits as well as both Housing and Council Tax Benefit

 

Of course there are the workshy but the amount paid to them is not as much as you think but there are approaching 3 Million a huge proportion of that figure are looking for jobs and deserve some money

 

If people got a living wage not the minimum wage the welfare budget could be very much reduced as of course it would be if there was availability of council housing at reasonable rents.

 

The main failure of the last Labour Government was in the area of building affordable housing so people are being ripped of by private landlords and people like you and me have to pay for it.

[CB Saint]

Interesting piece from the Telegraph. The IFS think that the budget is based on optimistic assumptions.

 

Lot of truth in that probably. Osborne reckons that people who are getting paid through limited companies because they wanted to avoid the 50% tax rate are suddenly going to go through PAYE because it's now 45%.

 

There are a couple of problems with that approach, naturally. Firstly, anyone working through a limited company pays a lot less than 45% tax. Secondly, if you are in that situation, it's a hassle. You've got to go through all the bother of closing the company down (or paying to keep it going in case the permanent work doesn't pan out), plus there is a massive assumption that a permanent job exists in the first place.

 

The truth about limited company contractors......

 

Firstly, in the main hell will freeze over before they accept a perm job, they earn far more than perm employees. Secondly, they were avoiding tax when the rate was 40%. 90 % of the people working like this are not legitimate ly self employed, dispite what they or their contracts say. These are some of the worst tax avoiders in the country. Unfortunately the hmrc are abject at sorting them out.

[Jonnyboy]

The truth about limited company contractors......

 

Firstly, in the main hell will freeze over before they accept a perm job, they earn far more than perm employees. Secondly, they were avoiding tax when the rate was 40%. 90 % of the people working like this are not legitimate ly self employed, dispite what they or their contracts say. These are some of the worst tax avoiders in the country. Unfortunately the hmrc are abject at sorting them out.

 

Isn't that what Rooney and co. do?

[Verbal]

Isn't that what Rooney and co. do?

 

I don't see how they could. It's not as if Rooney could legitimately claim that he goes off to do other 'contract' work as a footballer on the days he doesn't turn out for Man U.

 

Their tax tricks (I don't know about Rooney himself) have to do with image rights and offshore trusts.

[CB Saint]

Isn't that what Rooney and co. do?

 

It's where they bury their image rights. I'm talking about oil and gas workers, engineers, it workers who can save between £5000 and £10,000 per year using ltd companies. The hmrc have had a couple of nibbles at this but were as successful at stoping this as they were knobbling Harry and milan

[Jonnyboy]

Just thought Id throw this in seeing as Gideon and co. are fairly upper class:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.abstract?etoc

 

"Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decisi...on-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed."

[pap]

I listened to George Osborne on the Today Programme this morning, who claimed he didn't earn enough money to pay tax. He has a family home in London, which he rents out. If that place nets him £15K a year he should be a higher rate tax-payer.

 

The Daily Mail (of all places) enumerates his other financial interests:-

 

George Osborne earns £134,565 as Chancellor - just over £15,000 short of 50p tax threshold

He rents out Notting Hill family home while living in 10 Downing Street flat

Osborne has 15% stake in family wallpaper business which is worth an estimated £4million

It is believed that he last year sold £600,000 property in his constituency in Tatton, Cheshire

Osborne stands to inherit £4million from a family trust fund - dodging £1.6million inheritance tax

Chancellor faced claims he 'flipped' his second home at height of the expenses scandal

 

Reckon you can find fifteen grand in all that? How many family homes in Notting Hill do you reckon you can rent for 15K a year?

 

Incidentally, Osborne's family business is failing, making a loss of almost 800K last year. This is the man we want in charge of the country's finances

 

Daily Mail article

[pap]

Oh, this is beautiful:-

 

He would have to earn just £1,300 per month after deducting his costs by renting out his £2million Notting Hill property to push his earnings over £150,000 per year.

 

George Osborne's tenants should consider themselves very lucky. That is an astonishly good price for a property of that value in West London, particularly as a 3/4 bedroom place in Notting Hill goes for around ten grand a week.

[John B]

It is possible that Osborne is telling the truth about his tax arrangements although he is very economical with it usually.

 

Income from his company would be subject to 42.5% Dividend Tax

 

Income from selling his house would be subject to Capital Gains Tax

 

Perhaps he can offset his rental against mortgage payments made.

 

I dont really care how much he earns just care about how his economic plans are hurting me my family and the country his tax cutting is too austere

[Thedelldays]

I listened to George Osborne on the Today Programme this morning, who claimed he didn't earn enough money to pay tax. He has a family home in London, which he rents out. If that place nets him £15K a year he should be a higher rate tax-payer.

 

The Daily Mail (of all places) enumerates his other financial interests:-

 

George Osborne earns £134,565 as Chancellor - just over £15,000 short of 50p tax threshold

He rents out Notting Hill family home while living in 10 Downing Street flat

Osborne has 15% stake in family wallpaper business which is worth an estimated £4million

It is believed that he last year sold £600,000 property in his constituency in Tatton, Cheshire

Osborne stands to inherit £4million from a family trust fund - dodging £1.6million inheritance tax

Chancellor faced claims he 'flipped' his second home at height of the expenses scandal

 

Reckon you can find fifteen grand in all that? How many family homes in Notting Hill do you reckon you can rent for 15K a year?

 

Incidentally, Osborne's family business is failing, making a loss of almost 800K last year. This is the man we want in charge of the country's finances

 

Daily Mail article

you are such a political bore

 

the country is expensive....it was always going to be expensive no matter what colour was running it.

labour screwed us like you could not imagine...no the other lot are.........

scoring political points like you constantly do is boring and shows you as some sort of bitter being

[CB Saint]

I listened to George Osborne on the Today Programme this morning, who claimed he didn't earn enough money to pay tax. He has a family home in London, which he rents out. If that place nets him £15K a year he should be a higher rate tax-payer.

 

The Daily Mail (of all places) enumerates his other financial interests:-

 

George Osborne earns £134,565 as Chancellor - just over £15,000 short of 50p tax threshold

He rents out Notting Hill family home while living in 10 Downing Street flat

Osborne has 15% stake in family wallpaper business which is worth an estimated £4million

It is believed that he last year sold £600,000 property in his constituency in Tatton, Cheshire

Osborne stands to inherit £4million from a family trust fund - dodging £1.6million inheritance tax

Chancellor faced claims he 'flipped' his second home at height of the expenses scandal

 

Reckon you can find fifteen grand in all that? How many family homes in Notting Hill do you reckon you can rent for 15K a year?

 

Incidentally, Osborne's family business is failing, making a loss of almost 800K last year. This is the man we want in charge of the country's finances

 

Daily Mail article

 

How many "failing" businesses losing £800k pa are worth £4 m?

[Seaford Saint]

you are such a political bore

 

the country is expensive....it was always going to be expensive no matter what colour was running it.

labour screwed us like you could not imagine...no the other lot are.........

scoring political points like you constantly do is boring and shows you as some sort of bitter being

 

Is he boring just because he has a different viewpoint from you? Is it boring because you have a short attention span?

 

I find the extract interesting, especially the trust fund that allows the dodging of inheritance tax. You don't like tax dodgers or is dodging tax ok?

[pap]

How many "failing" businesses losing £800k pa are worth £4 m?

 

At least one.

[pap]

you are such a political bore

 

the country is expensive....it was always going to be expensive no matter what colour was running it.

labour screwed us like you could not imagine...no the other lot are.........

scoring political points like you constantly do is boring and shows you as some sort of bitter being

 

I didn't realise you had an interest in politics, Jamie. Never picked that up from any of your posts.

 

I like the idea that I'm scoring political points. Don't quite know who for, as I've never been a member of a political party and I'm your classic floating voter. Do let me know so that I can forward these 'points' to an appropriate political organ.

[Minty]

I didn't realise you had an interest in politics, Jamie. Never picked that up from any of your posts.

 

I like the idea that I'm scoring political points. Don't quite know who for, as I've never been a member of a political party and I'm your classic floating voter. Do let me know so that I can forward these 'points' to an appropriate political organ.

I actually find your posts fairly non-political, in comparison to many who find it difficult to look at political decisions in an objective light. There are for more candidates on here who try to 'score political points'.

 

On reflection I actually don't think the budget is all that big a deal for individuals in the great scheme of things. I agree with Duckhunter that the sums of money being talked about are not huge, I think the concern I always have is that in general, we should share the burden as much as possible, so taking more from one group than another will always introduce comparisons, and when the two main groups affected are the higher rate tax payers and pensioners, then the ensuing headlines are inevitable.

 

My biggest concern is the investment in oil and gas exploration from 'the greenest government ever'... yeah right. A real disappointment that sustainable job creation in renewable energy hasn't been encouraged and we continue our reliance on fossil fuels. That is far more short-sighted than anything else in the budget IMO.

[pap]

Cheers Minty.

 

If there is a theme to my posts, I hope it comes across as disillusionment with all of our major parties, and that's largely because I feel that they're all doing little more than re-arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic, or more accurately, twiddling the knobs they feel they're still allowed to touch.

 

As an avid reader of Private Eye, I fully accept that the lot of them have had their fingers in the trough. Perhaps the only difference between this and the last Government on that front is that the Conservatives are a lot more overt about their plans, and, dare I say it, politically bolder in trying to achieve them - particularly given the mandate (or lack, thereof) they have.

 

My view is that the country needs major reform, and that we need to start chipping away at the "untouchables", things that are considered politically immutable - like membership of the EU, a 'progressive' taxation system or drug policy. I know there are elements within each party that are concerned about these issues, but wholesale reform in these areas is just not on the effective political agenda.

 

I'm getting to the point where I believe that all the democracy my tax money buys me is the opportunity to express a preference in a flawed electoral system. Once these boys and girls are in, they're ostensibly indifferent to the real problems the public face, and in many cases, implementing policy in complete contravention of what they promised before the election.

 

I can understand promises being broken due to financial considerations, especially with the parlous finances that the Coalition government. It's the overt ideological vandalism that gets my goat, because from a tax payer's perspective, it really isn't good value for money.

[Bearsy]

I'm all for reform pap! What I'd do is anyone who wants to be Prime Minister is automatically disqualified on grounds of rampant egotism and megalomania. What's gonna happen next polling day is you just get a blank sheet of paper and have to write down the name of who you want to be in charge. That way you've got a lot of scope for change! You can vote for your nan or your dad, or your favourite actress or porn star or whatever!

 

David Beckham is the early favourite for next Prime Minister under the proposed Bearsy electoral reform. I think he'd do a bang up job!

[Saintandy666]

First post budget poll from Yougov gives labour an 8 point lead.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Interseting watching This Week last night. During his annihilation of some young lefty Andrew Neil brought up this fact; When the top tax rate was 98% the richest 1% of the population paid 5% of all income tax raised. When Lawson dropped it to 40% the richest 1% paid 30% of the income tax collected. (It is now 27%.) He also said that tax take doubled and in some years trebled once rates were lowered.

 

Lawson's lowering the tax rate led to the richest paying more into the state, yet the Labour party kicked up such a fuss that the commons sitting announcing it had to be suspended.

[buctootim]

Interseting watching This Week last night. During his annihilation of some young lefty Andrew Neil brought up this fact; When the top tax rate was 98% the richest 1% of the population paid 5% of all income tax raised. When Lawson dropped it to 40% the richest 1% paid 30% of the income tax collected. (It is now 27%.) He also said that tax take doubled and in some years trebled once rates were lowered.

 

Lawson's lowering the tax rate led to the richest paying more into the state, yet the Labour party kicked up such a fuss that the commons sitting announcing it had to be suspended.

 

Interesting. Two different ways you can interpret that.

1. When the top rate was 98% the wealthy hid, offshored income or physically moved overseas to avoid paying

2. Britain is now a much more unequal society where the top 1% are far richer than they were 40 years ago.

 

I suspect its a bit of both. Most interesting aspect of taxation is how corporation taxes have declined over the years as a percentage of total tax take and personal income taxes have risen. Corporation tax now makes up only around 8.5% of tax take compared with around 20% historically.

 

Some reasonably interesting tax date here .http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963#data

Edited 23 March, 2012 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

Interesting. Two different ways you can interpret that.

1. When the top rate was 98% the wealthy hid, offshored income or physically moved overseas to avoid paying

2. Britain is now a much more unequal society where the top 1% are far richer than they were 40 years ago.

 

I suspect its a bit of both.

 

But tax take also doubled once the highest rate was lowered, proving that it was more of 1, than 2.

 

The emotion should be taken out of tax rates, they should not be used for hammering the rich, no matter how much people want to. It should all be about how much money they bring in. If lowering the top tax rate to 30% brings in rich people from abroad, stops people like David Milliband & Ken Livingstone avioding it (with perfectly legal income shifting schemes) and raises more money for the State, then surely we should do that. Setting tax rates based on anything other than what £'s it generates is stupid.

 

Labour bought the 50% rate in for the last 57 days of their 13 years in charge. It was a purely political trap they hoped the Torys would fall in to. Is that any sort of way to set our tax rates.

[Clapham Saint]

Interesting. Two different ways you can interpret that.

1. When the top rate was 98% the wealthy hid, offshored income or physically moved overseas to avoid paying

2. Britain is now a much more unequal society where the top 1% are far richer than they were 40 years ago.

 

I suspect its a bit of both.

 

Or...

 

If you are paying 98% tax then the financial return that is required from an investment (especially a risky one) in order for it to be worth while is HUGE and as a result many projects simply don't go ahead.

 

With a lower tax rate more projects become viable and so more is invested, generating profits, which are then taxed, jobs, which are then taxed etc etc.

[Minty]

Interesting. Two different ways you can interpret that.

1. When the top rate was 98% the wealthy hid, offshored income or physically moved overseas to avoid paying

2. Britain is now a much more unequal society where the top 1% are far richer than they were 40 years ago.

 

I suspect its a bit of both.

Indeed, there is clearly more to it than is made out in the simplistic and misleading terms that ALL parties try to portray these issues.

 

However 2 is undoubtedly true, the gap has been consistently widening under *every* government for decades.

[buctootim]

Or...

 

If you are paying 98% tax then the financial return that is required from an investment (especially a risky one) in order for it to be worth while is HUGE and as a result many projects simply don't go ahead.

 

With a lower tax rate more projects become viable and so more is invested, generating profits, which are then taxed, jobs, which are then taxed etc etc.

 

I dont know what system of allowances, offsets etc were available back then so its impossible to compare. I dont think anyone seriously advocates going back to those punitive tax rates. Im happy with a top rate of 40% if all the dodges, employee benefit trusts, discretionary blind trusts, taking income as dividends, offshoring, non dom, Cayman islands accounts and general cheating were dealt with.

[saintfully]

Interesting. Two different ways you can interpret that.

1. When the top rate was 98% the wealthy hid, offshored income or physically moved overseas to avoid paying

2. Britain is now a much more unequal society where the top 1% are far richer than they were 40 years ago.

 

I suspect its a bit of both. Most interesting aspect of taxation is how corporation taxes have declined over the years as a percentage of total tax take and personal income taxes have risen. Corporation tax now makes up only around 8.5% of tax take compared with around 20% historically.

 

Some reasonably interesting tax date here .http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963#data

 

You only have to think about how much quicker incomes have risen for the top 1% vs the rest to appreciate that it is not surprising that their proportionate tax contribution has also increased. Back in the day (as recently as the sixties), investment bankers earned approx the same as doctors and senior managers. Now they can earn a multiple of that.

[bridge too far]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17499332

 

I'm saying nothing

[Thedelldays]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17499332

 

I'm saying nothing

im curious

 

when they have "raided" the NHS, won't it put it to about 2008 levels of spending..?

[dune]

I'm saying nothing

 

That's a bonus.

[Verbal]

The fall out from the granny tax gaff rolls on. Opinion polls indicate that Gormless George, all by his clever self, has caused an eight point gap to open up between Tories and Labour.

 

And after today's revelation that the super-rich can buy access to Cameron and Osborne for a cool quarter of a million, followed quickly by the - no doubt connected - news that BAA have got the third runway at Heathrow back on the agenda, we can safely assume that corruption at the highest level in British politics is back with a vengeance.

[dune]

The fall out from the granny tax gaff rolls on. Opinion polls indicate that Gormless George, all by his clever self, has caused an eight point gap to open up between Tories and Labour.

 

And after today's revelation that the super-rich can buy access to Cameron and Osborne for a cool quarter of a million, followed quickly by the - no doubt connected - news that BAA have got the third runway at Heathrow back on the agenda, we can safely assume that corruption at the highest level in British politics is back with a vengeance.

 

Was it Jo Moore who said 11/9 was a good day to bury bad news?

[Fuengirola Saint]

Was it Jo Moore who said 11/9 was a good day to bury bad news?

 

Who cares, this lot are shooting themselves in the foot with such alarming regularity, it's surely going to blow up in thier faces soon:-))